Public smoking becomes illegal in Toronto starting tomorrow
-
No! :-D He almost quit smoking! Cheers Smitha
Are you an aspiring author? Read how to submit articles to CodeProject: Article Submission Guidelines[^] More questions? Ask an editor here...
Smitha Vijayan wrote:
He almost quit smoking!
Is that anything like the infamous "almost pregnant?" _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
:confused: It's been illegal to smoke indoors in CA for years.
--Mike-- Visual C++ MVP :cool: LINKS~! Ericahist | PimpFish | CP SearchBar v3.0 | C++ Forum FAQ
Michael Dunn wrote:
It's been illegal to smoke indoors in CA for years.
Indoors as in Public-indoors, right? When I was in Mt View, people used to smoke in the streets all the time. Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. -
Being an American I can't speak intelligently on the Canadian system of government, but American is not a democracy. In fact, it works very hard to make sure that democracy never happens. Why? Because democracy means "majority rules." America works very hard to protect the rights of minorities (not just racial minorities, but minorities of every conceivable type). In other words, in truly democratic system, minorities are, by definition, screwed. As for "what people want", how do you define that? Smokers want to be able to smoke. Non smokers don't want to be subjected to smoke. So who makes the rules? Neither. Elected officials do. Unless they break the law (and get caught, and actually get prosecuted) these officials are not accountable to anyone from the moment they take office. They're free to promise one thing on the campaign and then do completely the opposite once they take office. It's legal, and not at all uncommon. The only things that they respond to are ego, money, and their ability to get re-elected. "The will of the people" isn't a frequent flyer on their radar, unless it falls into one of these three categories. For the record, I don't smoke, and would prefer not to inhale it from someone else. However, in my youth I smoked three packs a day, so I can see both sides to this issue. My concern is that the current trend in my own country is leaning more and more towards a "zero tolerance" (i.e. intolerant) state of mind and a legislation happy environment in which to enforce these convictions. If you can stir up a little public sentiment on an issue that might effect election day, then you, too, have a good chance of making ensuring that "everything I dislike should be illegal." What people want in general is not a factor. Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes Know someone who desperately needs to get a clue? Visit www.DownloadAClue.com and send them one!
Christopher Duncan wrote:
In other words, in truly democratic system, minorities are, by definition, screwed.
Interesting point, and one I hadn't really thought of before. Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. -
Being an American I can't speak intelligently on the Canadian system of government, but American is not a democracy. In fact, it works very hard to make sure that democracy never happens. Why? Because democracy means "majority rules." America works very hard to protect the rights of minorities (not just racial minorities, but minorities of every conceivable type). In other words, in truly democratic system, minorities are, by definition, screwed. As for "what people want", how do you define that? Smokers want to be able to smoke. Non smokers don't want to be subjected to smoke. So who makes the rules? Neither. Elected officials do. Unless they break the law (and get caught, and actually get prosecuted) these officials are not accountable to anyone from the moment they take office. They're free to promise one thing on the campaign and then do completely the opposite once they take office. It's legal, and not at all uncommon. The only things that they respond to are ego, money, and their ability to get re-elected. "The will of the people" isn't a frequent flyer on their radar, unless it falls into one of these three categories. For the record, I don't smoke, and would prefer not to inhale it from someone else. However, in my youth I smoked three packs a day, so I can see both sides to this issue. My concern is that the current trend in my own country is leaning more and more towards a "zero tolerance" (i.e. intolerant) state of mind and a legislation happy environment in which to enforce these convictions. If you can stir up a little public sentiment on an issue that might effect election day, then you, too, have a good chance of making ensuring that "everything I dislike should be illegal." What people want in general is not a factor. Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes Know someone who desperately needs to get a clue? Visit www.DownloadAClue.com and send them one!
Christopher Duncan wrote:
Being an American I can't speak intelligently on the Canadian system of government, but American is not a democracy. In fact, it works very hard to make sure that democracy never happens. Why? Because democracy means "majority rules." America works very hard to protect the rights of minorities (not just racial minorities, but minorities of every conceivable type). In other words, in truly democratic system, minorities are, by definition, screwed.
Not true. The US is a Representative Democracy, in that we choose our leaders who are beholden to us at the ballot box. They tend not to do things terribly unpopular as it results in their fall from power. Lower levels of government also allow for referendums (direct votes and pure democracy).
Christopher Duncan wrote:
As for "what people want", how do you define that? Smokers want to be able to smoke. Non smokers don't want to be subjected to smoke. So who makes the rules?
The majority. Competing interests are frequent and the will of the minority does not universally trump the will of the majority simply by the guise of "minority rights". If neither got to decide whether smoking could be banned, then there would be neither smoking nor smoking bans which logically does not make sense. When two interests clash, only one side wins and that's the majority (the composition of elected officials represents the voting-inclined in the general public).
Christopher Duncan wrote:
Elected officials do. Unless they break the law (and get caught, and actually get prosecuted) these officials are not accountable to anyone from the moment they take office. They're free to promise one thing on the campaign and then do completely the opposite once they take office. It's legal, and not at all uncommon. The only things that they respond to are ego, money, and their ability to get re-elected. "The will of the people" isn't a frequent flyer on their radar, unless it falls into one of these three categories.
Yes, but elected official are beholden to the voting public. Whether you choose to accept it or not, people usually think in black and white. Liberals are strongly aligned with other liberals in the beliefs as are conservatives. It's been that way since federalism and anti-federalism. The claim that our representatives ignore the will of the people is basically a cheap argument t
-
Christopher Duncan wrote:
In other words, in truly democratic system, minorities are, by definition, screwed.
Interesting point, and one I hadn't really thought of before. Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications.Nishant Sivakumar wrote:
Interesting point
But invalid in practice. Since its birth, the United States has actually expanded rights to all forms of minorities via legislative (i.e. popular majority) means. When there are competing interests such as smokers who want to smoke and those who don't want to breathe their smoke, the only reasonable solution is to allow the majority to rule on who wins. Otherwise, by definition, the majority would be screwed.
-
You can't ban everything. Most people would get yelled at by others if they threw something obvious, like a soda can, on the ground. Unfortunately, a cigarette is much smaller and too common a problem to be put in the same category. Besides, the ban on cigarettes is mainly for the air we breath and the smell of our clothes. The added benefit of a cleaner landscape is secondary. Not quite the same logic after all.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Besides, the ban on cigarettes is mainly for the air we breath and the smell of our clothes.
Not always. For health insurance reasons the Federal government banned smoking on all federal work areas. For fire hazard reasons much of the southwest national forests have a ban on smoking (even in your car! so watch it when you drive through) as well as camp-fires and camp-stoves. Last time I was on the trail before they closed the national forests here recently (because people "must" ignore the smoking ban -- it is their "right" to ignore it), I was hopping on the trail when a ranger came up and reminded me as I loaded up my pack that there was no camp fires and no smoking. I pull out my trail supplies and showed him, I told him I am probably the only hiker in the county that actually knows how to cold-camp. _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb) -- modified at 14:17 Tuesday 30th May, 2006
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Besides, the ban on cigarettes is mainly for the air we breath and the smell of our clothes.
Not always. For health insurance reasons the Federal government banned smoking on all federal work areas. For fire hazard reasons much of the southwest national forests have a ban on smoking (even in your car! so watch it when you drive through) as well as camp-fires and camp-stoves. Last time I was on the trail before they closed the national forests here recently (because people "must" ignore the smoking ban -- it is their "right" to ignore it), I was hopping on the trail when a ranger came up and reminded me as I loaded up my pack that there was no camp fires and no smoking. I pull out my trail supplies and showed him, I told him I am probably the only hiker in the county that actually knows how to cold-camp. _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb) -- modified at 14:17 Tuesday 30th May, 2006
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
I am probably the only hiker in the county that actually knows how to cold-camp.
Just make sure you have the right company to heat up. ;)
-
Michael Dunn wrote:
It's been illegal to smoke indoors in CA for years.
Indoors as in Public-indoors, right? When I was in Mt View, people used to smoke in the streets all the time. Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications.Right, indoors like any enclosed space, such as bars/restaurants.
--Mike-- Visual C++ MVP :cool: LINKS~! Ericahist | PimpFish | CP SearchBar v3.0 | C++ Forum FAQ
-
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
I am probably the only hiker in the county that actually knows how to cold-camp.
Just make sure you have the right company to heat up. ;)
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Just make sure you have the right company to heat up.
Nope, I hike alone. Not the safest, but not much choice. It's hike alone or don't hike. _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
I guess they can't stand the sight and smell of cigarettes in their car's ash tray
Or in my case, they don't care about the 100,000+ people living in a 600,000 acre National Forest with plenty of dry brush. PJC
Paul Conrad wrote:
Or in my case, they don't care about the 100,000+ people living in a 600,000 acre National Forest with plenty of dry brush.
Ditto! though I don't think we have 100,000+ people here... at least half that much with all the mountain communities combined, but maybe, just maybe near that. They had to close the national forest here because people refuse to follow the ban. If someone can't play by the rules, no one can play. _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
:confused: It's been illegal to smoke indoors in CA for years.
--Mike-- Visual C++ MVP :cool: LINKS~! Ericahist | PimpFish | CP SearchBar v3.0 | C++ Forum FAQ
Michael Dunn wrote:
It's been illegal to smoke indoors in CA for years.
That's not good enough. I am talking about outdoors, too. Nothing like walking outside in front of a movie theater and my children and I getting second hand smoke. Simply ban smoking altogether :)
-
Michael Dunn wrote:
It's been illegal to smoke indoors in CA for years.
That's not good enough. I am talking about outdoors, too. Nothing like walking outside in front of a movie theater and my children and I getting second hand smoke. Simply ban smoking altogether :)
Paul Conrad wrote:
Nothing like walking outside in front of a movie theater and my children and I getting second hand smoke. Simply ban smoking altogether
But cars (specially SUVs) and trucks emit more poisonous gas than do smokers, don't they? Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. -
Paul Conrad wrote:
Nothing like walking outside in front of a movie theater and my children and I getting second hand smoke. Simply ban smoking altogether
But cars (specially SUVs) and trucks emit more poisonous gas than do smokers, don't they? Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications.Nishant Sivakumar wrote:
But cars (specially SUVs) and trucks emit more poisonous gas than do smokers, don't they?
Yep. The nice thing about living at the 6,000ft altitude where I live, the Los Angeles smog is a good 3,000 feet below :-> So when I go down the mountain, I try to hold my breath.
-
Nishant Sivakumar wrote:
But cars (specially SUVs) and trucks emit more poisonous gas than do smokers, don't they?
Yep. The nice thing about living at the 6,000ft altitude where I live, the Los Angeles smog is a good 3,000 feet below :-> So when I go down the mountain, I try to hold my breath.
Paul Conrad wrote:
The nice thing about living at the 6,000ft altitude where I live, the Los Angeles smog is a good 3,000 feet below
Cool :-) Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. -
Having lost a Dad to cancer, have to say smoking is not one of the brighter moves. However, I don't think you really want the government behaving this invasively. It never ends. You think you will be able to smoke in your car/house, then someone will say, "but what about the other people in your house..." and then they'll be in there as well. Having said that, #1 beef with smokers - put your Da$$m butts in your ashtray, don't fling them out the window. Charlie Gilley Will program for food... Whoever said children were cheaper by the dozen... lied. My son's PDA is an M249 SAW.
charlieg wrote:
You think you will be able to smoke in your car/house
Interesting thought - what about idiots who smoke around children? The children don't reasonably have the opportunity to escape the smoke (it's in their home) and they're probably even more affected than adults by 2nd hand smoke (developing lungs etc). Paul
-
It’s last call for smokers in Ontario[^] - Smitha
Are you an aspiring author? Read how to submit articles to CodeProject: Article Submission Guidelines[^] More questions? Ask an editor here...
Good. A similar law comes into force in the UK next year (it's already law in Scotland). As someone who had to suffer second hand smoke from my family constantly when I was little, I'm all for it. I've walked out of places before now because of smoke (it which makes me cough badly, and I have enough difficulties with shortness of breath as it is, probably as a result to the exposure I suffered during my childhood) so it will be good to feel I can actually go into bars etc. again. Anna :rose: Currently working mostly on: Visual Lint :cool: Anna's Place | Tears and Laughter "Be yourself - not what others think you should be" - Marcia Graesch "Anna's just a sexy-looking lesbian tart" - A friend, trying to wind me up. It didn't work.
-
charlieg wrote:
You think you will be able to smoke in your car/house
Interesting thought - what about idiots who smoke around children? The children don't reasonably have the opportunity to escape the smoke (it's in their home) and they're probably even more affected than adults by 2nd hand smoke (developing lungs etc). Paul
I can speak from personal experience on that one. I'm certain the problems I have with breathlessness are closely linked to an almost continuous passive smoke exposure during childhood... Anna :rose: Currently working mostly on: Visual Lint :cool: Anna's Place | Tears and Laughter "Be yourself - not what others think you should be" - Marcia Graesch "Anna's just a sexy-looking lesbian tart" - A friend, trying to wind me up. It didn't work.
-
I can speak from personal experience on that one. I'm certain the problems I have with breathlessness are closely linked to an almost continuous passive smoke exposure during childhood... Anna :rose: Currently working mostly on: Visual Lint :cool: Anna's Place | Tears and Laughter "Be yourself - not what others think you should be" - Marcia Graesch "Anna's just a sexy-looking lesbian tart" - A friend, trying to wind me up. It didn't work.
It's a good point - and one that I am very sensitive too. But where I hesitate is when the *government* decides what is best for a child. Please, I am NOT advocating as a parental right that one should smoke around your children. Both of my parents were/are smokers, and it drove me crazy. What I am advocating is that a paternalistic government is a far greater threat to the child's freedoms than any brain-dead parent, myself included. Paranoid? Sure, I'm a crazy American. But, in American society, we can sue McDonald's for encouraging us to be overweight. Now, we have suggestions that parents should be held liable for not providing "proper" nutrition for their children. Interestingly, "proper" is determined by government and not common sense. Where does it end? I guess in summary, it really boils down to the parents being responsible and not the nanny state. Charlie Gilley Will program for food... Whoever said children were cheaper by the dozen... lied. My son's PDA is an M249 SAW.